The New York Times is ringing the alarm bells over the likelihood this year will top 2014 for the hottest year on record (it wasn’t, by the way). “2015 Likely to Be Hottest Year Ever Recorded,” read Wednesday’s headline trumpeting NOAA’s announcement that the first nine months of this year featured unparalleled warmth. That’s not entirely surprising — with a strong (historic?) El Niño taking shape, the odds were high anyway — so we’ll just go ahead and make it official: 2015 will be the warmest year on record. But the veracity of that claim depends on who’s keeping score. There are two critical drawbacks. First, NOAA relies on land-based measurements, which can easily be manipulated, and there is a significant amount of geography that doesn’t contain any data — meaning the overall picture is very much incomplete. Second, and most egregious, the agency continues to tinker with historical records to inflate today’s warming. So forgive us for being skeptical of an agency that reconfigures data for political purposes.

On the other hand, satellite measurements reveal that the Great Pause is still going strong, now at 18 years and eight months. Some believe this warming hiatus will eventually end because of El Niño, but so far it hasn’t. And that’s perhaps the most surprising thing of all — because all streaks eventually end. The Left, of course, can barely conceal its excitement over NOAA’s claims, because it fits their narrative perfectly. UN delegates will meet for a climate summit in Paris next month. And the sense is that they’ll finally have enough momentum to regulate carbon emissions.

Secretary of State John Kerry recently said, “[W]hen I hear a United States senator say, ‘I’m not a scientist so I can’t make a judgment,’ or a candidate for president for that matter, I’m absolutely astounded. … [W]hen more than 6,000-plus peer-reviewed studies of the world’s best scientists all lay out that [global warming] is happening and mankind is contributing to it, it seems to me that [climate skeptics] disqualify themselves fundamentally from high public office with those kinds of statements.” Given the facts — 18 years, eight months and counting, John — why should skeptics be penalized for rejecting junk science?